About your Search

20120926
20121004
STATION
CNN 3
CNNW 3
CSPAN 2
KQED (PBS) 2
KRCB (PBS) 2
CSPAN2 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
MSNBC 1
MSNBCW 1
WETA 1
WMPT (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 20
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)
the obama administration insisted the assault was a protest that got out of hand. fox news confirmed u.s. intelligence did indeed know it was a terror attack of 24 hours of that evening. bill: yesterday the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and the defense secretary finally statedding the obvious. >> it was a terrorist attack. as we determined details of what took place there and how that attack took place that it became clear there were terrorists who planned that attack. that's when i came to that conclusion. >> day after or was -- >> took a while to really get some of the feedback from what exactly happened at that location. >> there was a thread of intelligence reporting that groups in the environment in western, correction, eastern libya, were seeking to coalesce but there wasn't anything specific. bill: well, peter doocy is live in washington drilling down on the specifics. peter, if the administration knew it was terrorist attack in 24 hours, why did they not just say that? >> reporter: we heard from administration officials there is ongoing investigation and more details wi
is that the obama administration has declined to defend the defense of marriage act. and governor romney may well decide that he would defend the constitutionality of that statute could but it does not seem that that kind of social conservative question has a lot of salience in something like a presidential debate. so other than health care, i do not see much happening. >> i think it will not happen. and here's why. no major national political figure has attacked affirmative action publicly since 1996 or before. it isind of remarkable. the republicans who, during the 1990's for a while, we're seeing some sort of political profit attacking affirmative action given the polls don't do it anymore. and the democrats, john kerry coming nearly 1990's, joe lieberman in the early 1990's and others, said maybe this time to stop these racial preferences. the democratic leadership council was inching down that road. but that has all gone. i have spoken with republican politicians. why is that? and the answer was that we get so demonized if we ever raise our voices against affirmative action. it is just not w
's very easy to say here the obama administration and our government is not doing their job. i'm asking the american citizens at the end of the day, what are you doing to help the deconstruction of the complex issue to support democratic everywhere? if you're serious about democracy here, you have to be serious about democracy, and democracy's about explaning and complexity about tensions about understanding from behind the scene what is happening so this is one answer to the question. .. then begin the populist and religious, and the canadian populace to neocon we have to be equipped. when newton and intellectuals humbling. i mean it. i mean it. an intellectual geoid is really a freer serious about democracy , really have to understand that we have to discipline our minds exist -- resisting emotional politics. if we don't get it so quickly and motions are misleading. in the arab world when it comes to women, if you're good in the speak about women's rights. of sorry. announcing the spectrum coming from the west. i'm saying this in the name of islam because you're not respecting the mus
the obama administration. >> in the book you write about the obama's administration handling of the withdrawal from iraq. the administration had a fresh chance to reengage with iraq's leaders and shape its politics. obama did not act decisively on that chance choosing ahead to take hands off approach on iraq. this decision was characteristic of those obama made on iraq. he saw america's involvement there not as an opportunity but rather as a leftover minefield, a path out of which had to be charted as quickly as possible. explain that to us. >> at the end of the bush administration, the beginning of the obama administration, violence was down substantially in iraq. the question was were we going to keep a small number of troops in iraq after 2011? how would that be negotiated? there was a significant difference, i think, in perspective between the pentagon where admiral mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, civilians, saw iraq as an opportunity. they wanted to keep a reasonably sized force around 16,000. at the white house, the national security adviser saw it more t
of preemptive strike against iran, imagine that happens, what does the obama administration do if it's still in power come november and the election? what do you do? >> well, i mean, that's the dilemma in terms of turning to military action that may well be necessary at some point. israel probably has -- certainly has the capability to in some ways delay, you know, the advance towards that nuclear line, but perhaps does not have the ability to destroy the entire program. and that's the conundrum when you get to military action is in many respects, if you start this fight, one of two things has to happen. you have to continue to regime change as we did in iraq. that's a legitimate policy option but obviously a very expensive one. but the other is should it not destroy iran's nuclear program, you probably make that iranian bomb inevitable, because you can destroy facilities but you can't destroy knowledge. >> richard williamson, let's assume mitt romney wins in november. his rhetoric has been even stronger against president ahmadinejad and iran. what would a romney administration do if israel
.s. officials as an eruption of anger at an anti-islam film. the obama administration has since reversed that appraisal and now calls it a well coordinated terrorist attack. but questions have mounted over the shifting assessments. and today two republican congressmen, oversight committee chairman darrell issa of california and jays leveled new allegations. in a letter to secretary of state clinton, they charged washington rejected multiple requests for security improvements at been gas emission. they base their assertions on unidentified sources described as multiple u.s. federal government officials. the state department spokeswoman said the secretary would respond in writing this very day. >> her response is going to be relatively succinct today, as i said, expressing her complete commitment to work with the congress to get fully to the bottom of this. but i don't anticipate she'll be able to answer the specific questions today >> warner: the two congressmen say their committee will hold a hearing next wednesday on the libya attack. meanwhile the f.b.i. has sent a team to libya to det
of the obama administration. if i understand it correctly, i was busy dodging other kinds of projectiles in iraq at the time. if i understand this correctly, this is a deeply idealistic effort to try to say, we are not only going to give money, not only have an impact with a fairly large, civilian assistance program to balance our ongoing military commitment to pakistan, but we are also going to set up a structure or relationship to what is generally called the strategic partnership to try to mbreak out of that pattern. after 2008 and 2009, those of you who knew richard knew the hurricane hit pakistan and there was a set of very ambitious goals that were put in to try to build a long-term commitment to pakistan. i use long-term advisedly. america is focused on the counter-terrorism after post- 9/11. by the almost a pistol logical elements -- epistemological element, this was to balance that short-term set of needs. american safety, the safety of the pack as any people. to balance that with a commitment of long-term stability, and a vision with pakistan of a long-term stability in pakista
Search Results 0 to 19 of about 20 (some duplicates have been removed)